&c. instead of "Thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c. without assigning any reason for his deviating from the English version, as well as the Hebrew and Greek originals. For in the original Hebrew there is no "Jehovah" mentioned in Psalm cii. 25, and, consequently, in the Greek passage, Heb. i. 10, which is a quotation of the same verse of the above Psalm, the term κυριε cannot be supposed to be intended as a translation of the word Jehovah. So in the English version the verse stands thus, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c. I shall, however, feel obliged to the Rev. Editor, if he can point out to me any authority for his substitution of the word "Jehovah" for Lord, in the verse in question.

With a view to weaken the strength of the evidence found in 1 Cor. xv. 24, as to the changeable nature of Christ, the Editor says, (page 562,) “ His original throne as Jehovah God, is forever and ever; his mediatorial throne remains for a season, and then ceases."

I have already noticed, in pp. 170 and 277 of the Second Appeal, and in the foregoing chapter of this work, that the term forever, or similar terms, when used for a creature, or a begotten son, signify, in scriptural idiom, long duration of time. My reader, therefore, by referring to those instances, will be convinced, that neither Solomon, to whom Psalm cii. 25, is directly applied, nor Jesus, to whom the apostle applies the said verse in the above Psalm, in an accommodated sense, can be supposed to be endued with a throne or kingdom that never will cease ;-a question which St. Paul decides in the most plain and positive terms, in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have laid down all rule and all authority and power For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (Ver. 28.) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Here the apostle declares, that Jesus will in the end deliver up his kingdom to God the Father, and not to God composed (as the Editor maintains) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that the Son himself, unlimited to any particular capacity, whether mediatorial, human, or divine, shall be subject to the Father, that God alone may be all in all. Is there in this passage, or in any other part of the scriptures, any authority for saying that the Son's mediatorial throne alone shall be delivered up to the Father? On the contrary, neither he nor any one, can in a mediatorial capacity exercise a kingdom; but Jesus, as the king of our faith, the anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, has a kingdom and throne, and that kingdom only can he deliver up in the end of the world, that God may be all in all. Besides, the above verse (28) asserts, that he, as the Son, the highest title that Jesus is honored with, will be subject to him who has exalted him above all creatures. No one, besides, unbiassed by early prejudice, can ever venture to pronounce such an opinion as, that a being can lose his kingdom in any capacity whatsoever. and yet be unchangeable.

As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstances of the term "sheperd" being applied to God, in Psalm xxiii. [1,] and to Jesus, in John x. 16, I pointed out (pp. 290, 291 of the Second Appeal,) that the same term "shepherd" is used for Moses, (in Isaiah lxiii. 11, "With the shepherd of his flock,") and for the leaders of Israel, (Jer. xxiii. 4, "I will set up shepherds over them,) yet that none of those persons is supposed to have been united with God.

The Rev. Editor, although he acknowledges the accuracy of my above assertion, yet tries to draw from it an argument against me by means of one or two strange questions. One is, (page 562,) "But did he" (the author) " never read of a chief shepherd, who, when he shall appear, will give the under shepherds a crown of glory?" The other is, "But was our author ignorant that David was also one of Christ's fold, and Moses and Abraham?" In answer to which, I must confess that I am ignorant of David, Moses, and Abraham, having been of Christ's fold: and although Jesus is styled " a chief shepherd," yet such avowal of his superiority above other messengers of the Deity neither places him on a level with Jehovah, nor does it prove his unity with the Most High God. Can a chief among the generals of a king, be ever supposed equal to, or identified with, the king, his employer? With respect to the argument founded on referring to Jesus Christ, Ezek. xxxiv. 23, "I will set one shepherd, even my servant David," I observed in my Second Appeal, (page 291,) that, even in this case," they must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the employer, and the Messiah his servant." To which the Editor makes reply, "We must relinquish a unity of nature between the Divine Father and the Messiah whom he sent, just as much as we do between Cyaxares and Cyrus, employed to lead his armies, between Vespasian and Titus, between George the Third and his son, now George the Fourth." In this passage, it must be confessed that we have something like a clear definition or exposition of the nature of the Trinity, in which the Editor professes his belief;-that is, he conceives the Godhead to constitute a genus like angel, man, fowl, fish, &c., God the Son being of the same nature with God the Father, just as the man George the Third is of the same nature with the man George the Fourth, though of a separate will, inclination, and passion, and distinct existence-a conception which is certainly compatible with an idea of unity of nature between the Father and the Son, but which is entirely inconsistent with that of coevality between them; and implies, that, as the difference of existence, &c., between man and man is the origin of the plurality of mankind, so the difference of existence, &c., between God and God, must cause plurality in the Godhead. Can there be any polytheistical creed more clear and more gross than this? Yet the Editor will take it amiss if charged with Polytheism. It is worth observing, that the orthodox, so far from establishing the unity of the Messiah with God by means of the above passage, "I will set one sheperd over them, even my servant David," can at most but prove unity between the Messiah and God's servant David.

In the course of this argument, the Editor says, that "he had adduced many other passages in which the Son is called Jehovah." I wonder at this assertion. I find hitherto only two places in which he applies the word Jehovah to Jesus, "Thy throne, O

God!" &c., " And thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c. The Editor takes upon himself to use the term Jehovah instead of "God" in the former, and instead of "Lord" in the latter instance, as before noticed, and now he gives out his own perversion of those texts as authority!

Mr. Jones having attempted to deduce the deity of Jesus by a comparison of Ephes. iv. 18, with Psalm lxviii. 18, "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them," -I observed, (page 297, Second Appeal,) that, "from a view of the whole verse, the sense must, according to this mode of reasoning, be as follows-The person who ascended on high, and who received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them, is the Lord God, an interpretation, which, as implying that the Lord God ascended, and received gifts from a being of course superior to himself, in order that he might dwell among men, is equally absurd and unscriptural." The Editor entirely omits to notice the foregoing observation, and only refers to the context, inferring thence that different persons of the Godhead are addressed in the course of the Psalm. (Page 564.)